A Canadian Simulation Model for Major Depressive Disorder: Study Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common, often recurrent condition and a significant driver of healthcare costs. People with MDD often receive pharmacological therapy as the first-line treatment, but the majority of people require more than one medication trial to find one that relieves symptoms without causing intolerable side effects. There is an acute need for more effective interventions to improve patients' remission and quality of life and reduce the condition's economic burden on the healthcare system. Pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing could deliver these objectives, using genomic information to guide prescribing decisions. With an already complex and multifaceted care pathway for MDD, future evaluations of new treatment options require a flexible analytic infrastructure encompassing the entire care pathway. Individual-level simulation models are ideally suited for this purpose. We sought to develop an economic simulation model to assess the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of PGx testing for individuals with major depression. Additionally, the model serves as an analytic infrastructure, simulating the entire patient pathway for those with MDD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Key stakeholders, including patient partners, clinical experts, researchers, and modelers, designed and developed a discrete-time microsimulation model of the clinical pathways of adults with MDD in British Columbia (BC), including all publicly-funded treatment options and multiple treatment steps. The Simulation Model of Major Depression (SiMMDep) was coded with a modular approach to enhance flexibility. The model was populated using multiple original data analyses conducted with BC administrative data, a systematic review, and an expert panel. The model accommodates newly diagnosed and prevalent adult patients with MDD in BC, with and without PGx-guided treatment. SiMMDep comprises over 1500 parameters in eight modules: entry cohort, demographics, disease progression, treatment, adverse events, hospitalization, costs and quality-adjusted life-years (payoff), and mortality. The model predicts health outcomes and estimates costs from a health system perspective. In addition, the model can incorporate interactive decision nodes to address different implementation strategies for PGx testing (or other interventions) along the clinical pathway. We conducted various forms of model validation (face, internal, and cross-validity) to ensure the correct functioning and expected results of SiMMDep. CONCLUSION: SiMMDep is Canada's first medication-specific, discrete-time microsimulation model for the treatment of MDD. With patient partner collaboration guiding its development, it incorporates realistic care journeys. SiMMDep synthesizes existing information and incorporates provincially-specific data to predict the benefits and costs associated with PGx testing. These predictions estimate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, resource utilization, and health gains of PGx testing compared with the current standard of care. However, the flexible analytic infrastructure can be adapted to support other policy questions and facilitate the rapid synthesis of new data for a broader search for efficiency improvements in the clinical field of depression.

Cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenomic-guided treatment for major depression.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacogenomic testing to identify variations in genes that influence metabolism of antidepressant medications can enhance efficacy and reduce adverse effects of pharmacotherapy for major depressive disorder. We sought to establish the cost-effectiveness of implementing pharmacogenomic testing to guide prescription of antidepressants. METHODS: We developed a discrete-time microsimulation model of care pathways for major depressive disorder in British Columbia, Canada, to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenomic testing from the public payer's perspective over 20 years. The model included unique patient characteristics (e.g., metabolizer phenotypes) and used estimates derived from systematic reviews, analyses of administrative data (2015-2020) and expert judgment. We estimated incremental costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for a representative cohort of patients with major depressive disorder in BC. RESULTS: Pharmacogenomic testing, if implemented in BC for adult patients with moderate-severe major depressive disorder, was predicted to save the health system $956 million ($4926 per patient) and bring health gains of 0.064 life-years and 0.381 QALYs per patient (12 436 life-years and 74 023 QALYs overall over 20 yr). These savings were mainly driven by slowing or avoiding the transition to refractory (treatment-resistant) depression. Pharmacogenomic-guided care was associated with 37% fewer patients with refractory depression over 20 years. Sensitivity analyses estimated that costs of pharmacogenomic testing would be offset within about 2 years of implementation. INTERPRETATION: Pharmacogenomic testing to guide antidepressant use was estimated to yield population health gains while substantially reducing health system costs. These findings suggest that pharmacogenomic testing offers health systems an opportunity for a major value-promoting investment.

Blood pressure lowering efficacy of beta-1 selective beta blockers for primary hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Beta blockers are commonly used to treat hypertension. The blood pressure reading is the primary tool for physicians and patients to assess the efficacy of the treatment. The blood pressure lowering effect of beta-1 selective blockers is not known. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the dose-related effects of various doses and types of beta-1 selective adrenergic receptor blockers on systolic and diastolic blood pressure versus placebo in people with primary hypertension. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) for related reviews.We searched the following databases for primary studies: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register (All years to 15 October 2015), CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (2015, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 15 October 2015), Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 15 October 2015) and ClinicalTrials.gov (all years to 15 October 2015).The Hypertension Group Specialised Register includes controlled trials from searches of CAB Abstracts, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Food Science and Technology Abstracts (FSTA), Global Health, LILACS, MEDLINE, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, PsycINFO, Web of Science and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).Electronic databases were searched using a strategy combining the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for identifying randomized trials in MEDLINE: sensitivity-maximizing version (2008 revision) with selected MeSH terms and free text terms. No language restrictions were used. The MEDLINE search strategy was translated into CENTRAL, EMBASE, the Hypertension Group Specialised Register and ClinicalTrials.gov using the appropriate controlled vocabulary as applicable. Full strategies are in Appendix 1. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel or cross-over trials. Studies had to contain a beta blocker monotherapy arm with fixed dose. People enrolled into the studies had to have primary hypertension at baseline. Duration of studies had to be between 3 weeks to 12 weeks. Drugs in this class of beta blockers are atenolol, betaxolol, bevantolol, bisoprolol, esmolol, metoprolol, nebivolol, pafenolol, practolol. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors confirmed the inclusion of studies and extracted the data independently. Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3.5 was used to synthesise data. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 56 RCTs (randomised controlled trials) that examined the blood pressure (BP) lowering efficacy of beta-1 selective blockers (beta-1 blocker) in 7812 primary hypertensive patients. Among the included trials, 26 RCTs were parallel studies and 30 RCTs were cross-over studies, examining eight beta-1 blockers. Overall, the majority of beta-1 blockers studied significantly lowered systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). In people with mild to moderate hypertension, beta-1 selective blockers lowered BP by an average of -10/-8 mmHg and reduced heart rate by 11 beats per minute. The maximum BP reduction of beta-1 blockers occurred at twice the starting dose. Individual beta-1 blockers did not exhibit a graded dose-response effect on SBP and DBP over the recommended dose range.Most beta-1 blockers tested significantly lowered heart rate. A graded dose-response of beta-1 blockers on heart rate was evident. Higher dose beta-1 blockers lowered heart rate more than lower doses. Individually and overall beta-1 blockers did not affect pulse pressure, which distinguishes them from other classes of drugs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides low quality evidence that in people with mild to moderate hypertension, beta-1 selective blockers lowered BP by an average of -10/-8 mmHg and reduced heart rate by 11 beats per minute as compared to placebo. The effect of beta-1 blockers at peak hours, -12/-9 mmHg, was greater than the reduction at trough hours, -8/-7 mmHg. Beta-1 selective blockers lowered BP by a greater magnitude than dual receptor beta-blockers and partial agonist beta-blockers, lowered BP similarly to nonselective beta-blockers. Beta-1 selective blockers lowered SBP by a similar degree and lowered DBP by a greater degree than diuretics, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers. Because DBP is lowered by a similar extent to SBP, beta-1 selective blockers do not reduce pulse pressure.

Blood pressure lowering efficacy of dual alpha and beta blockers for primary hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Drugs with combined alpha and beta blocking activity are commonly prescribed to treat hypertension. However, the blood pressure (BP) lowering efficacy of this class of beta blockers has not been systematically reviewed and quantified. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the dose-related effects of various types of dual alpha and beta adrenergic receptor blockers (dual receptor blockers) on systolic and diastolic blood pressure versus placebo in patients with primary hypertension. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials up to October 2014. The WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) is searched for inclusion in the Group's Specialised Register. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized double blind placebo controlled parallel or cross-over trials. Studies contained a beta blocker monotherapy arm with a fixed dose. Patients enrolled in the studies had primary hypertension at baseline. Duration of the studies was from three to 12 weeks. Drugs in this class of beta blockers are carvedilol, dilevalol and labetalol. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (GW and AL) confirmed the inclusion of studies and extracted the data independently. RevMan 5.3 was used to synthesize data. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies examining the blood pressure lowering efficacy of carvedilol and labetalol in 1493 hypertensive patients. Five of the included studies were parallel design; three were cross-over design. The two largest included studies were unpublished carvedilol studies. The estimates of BP lowering effect (systolic BP/diastolic BP millimeters of mercury; SPB/DBP mm Hg) were -4 mm Hg (95% confidence intervals (CI) -6 to -2)/-3 mm Hg (95% CI -4 to -2) for carvedilol (>1000 subjects) and -10 mm Hg (95% CI -14 to -7)/-7 mm Hg (95% CI -9 to -5) for labetalol (110 subjects). The effect of labetalol is likely to be exaggerated due to high risk of bias. Carvedilol, within the recommended dose range, did not show a significant dose response effect for SBP or DBP. Carvedilol had little or no effect on pulse pressure (-1 mm Hg) and did not change BP variability. Overall, once and twice the starting dose of carvedilol and labetalol lowered BP by -6 mm Hg (95% CI -7 to -4) /-4 mm Hg (95% CI -4 to -3) (low quality evidence) and lowered heart rate by five beats per minute (95% CI -6 to -4) (low quality evidence). Five studies (N = 1412) reported withdrawal due to adverse effects; the risk ratio was 0.88 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.42) (moderate quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides low quality evidence that in patients with mild to moderate hypertension, dual receptor blockers lowered trough BP by an average of -6/-4 mm Hg and reduced heart rate by five beats per minute. Due to the larger sample size from the two unpublished studies, carvedilol provided a better estimate of BP lowering effect than labetalol. The BP lowering estimate from combining carvedilol once and twice the starting doses is -4/-3 mm Hg. Doses higher than the recommended starting dose did not provide additional BP reduction. Higher doses of dual receptor blockers caused more bradycardia than lower doses. Based on indirect comparison with other classes of drugs, the blood pressure lowering effect of dual alpha- and beta-receptor blockers is less than non-selective, beta1 selective and partial agonist beta blockers, as well as thiazides and drugs inhibiting the renin angiotensin system. Dual blockers also had little or no effect on reducing pulse pressure, which is similar to the other beta-blocker classes, but less than the average reduction of pulse pressure seen with thiazides and drugs inhibiting the renin angiotensin system. Patients taking dual receptor blockers were not more likely to withdraw from the study compared to patients taking placebo.

First-line drugs inhibiting the renin angiotensin system versus other first-line antihypertensive drug classes for hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors are widely prescribed for treatment of hypertension, especially for diabetic patients on the basis of postulated advantages for the reduction of diabetic nephropathy and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite widespread use of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for hypertension in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients, the efficacy and safety of RAS inhibitors compared to other antihypertensive drug classes remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of first-line RAS inhibitors compared to other first-line antihypertensive drugs in patients with hypertension. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials up to November 19, 2014 and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to October 19, 2014. The WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) is searched for inclusion in the Cochrane Hypertension Group's Specialised Register. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized, active-controlled, double-blinded studies with at least six months follow-up in people with primary elevated blood pressure (≥130/85 mmHg), which compared first-line RAS inhibitors with other first-line antihypertensive drug classes and reported morbidity and mortality or blood pressure outcomes. Patients with proven secondary hypertension were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risk of bias and entered the data for analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 42 studies, involving 65,733 participants, with a mean age of 66 years. Much of the evidence for our key outcomes is dominated by a small number of large studies at a low risk of bias for most sources of bias. Imbalances in the added second-line antihypertensive drugs in some of the studies were important enough for us to downgrade the quality of the evidence.Primary outcomes were all-cause death, fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal and non-fatal congestive heart failure (CHF) requiring hospitalization, total cardiovascular (CV) events (consisted of fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal MI and fatal and non-fatal CHF requiring hospitalizations), and ESRF. Secondary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate (HR).Compared with first-line calcium channel blockers (CCBs), we found moderate quality evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased heart failure (HF) (35,143 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.90, ARR 1.2%), and moderate quality evidence that they increased stroke (34,673 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32, ARI 0.7%). They had similar effects on all-cause death (35,226 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09; moderate quality evidence), total CV events (35,223 participants in 6 RCTs, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02; moderate quality evidence), total MI (35,043 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09; moderate quality evidence). The results for ESRF do not exclude potentially important differences (19,551 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05; low quality evidence).Compared with first-line thiazides, we found moderate quality evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors increased HF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.31, ARI 1.0%), and increased stroke (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.28, ARI 0.6%). They had similar effects on all-cause death (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07; moderate quality evidence), total CV events (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11; moderate quality evidence), and total MI (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01; moderate quality evidence). Results for ESRF do not exclude potentially important differences (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.37; low quality evidence).Compared with first-line beta-blockers, we found low quality evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased total CV events (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98, ARR 1.7%), and low quality evidence that they decreased stroke (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88, ARR 1.7% ). Our analyses do not exclude potentially important differences between first-line RAS inhibitors and beta-blockers on all-cause death (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; low quality evidence), HF (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18; low quality evidence), and total MI (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27; low quality evidence).Blood pressure comparisons between RAS inhibitors and other classes showed either no differences or small differences that did not necessarily correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.In the protocol, we identified non-fatal serious adverse events (SAE) as a primary outcome. However, when we extracted the data from included studies, none of them reported total SAE in a manner that could be used in the review. Therefore, there is no information about SAE in the review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found predominantly moderate quality evidence that all-cause mortality is similar when first-line RAS inhibitors are compared to other first-line antihypertensive agents. First-line thiazides caused less HF and stroke than first-line RAS inhibitors. The quality of the evidence comparing first-line beta-blockers and first-line RAS inhibitors was low and the lower risk of total CV events and stroke seen with RAS inhibitors may change with the publication of additional trials. Compared with first-line CCBs, first-line RAS inhibitors reduced HF but increased stroke. The magnitude of the reduction in HF exceeded the increase in stroke. The small differences in effect on blood pressure between the different classes of drugs did not correlate with the differences in the primary outcomes.

Blood pressure lowering efficacy of partial agonist beta blocker monotherapy for primary hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Partial agonists are a subclass of beta blockers used to treat hypertension in many countries. Partial agonist act by stimulating beta receptors when they are quiescent and blocking beta receptors when they are active. The blood pressure (BP) lowering effect of partial agonist beta blockers has not been quantified. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the dose-related effects of various partial agonists beta blockers on systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate versus placebo in patients with primary hypertension. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Hypertension Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials up to October 2014. The WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) is searched for inclusion in the Group's Specialised Register. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled parallel or cross-over trials. Studies must contain a partial agonist monotherapy arm with fixed dose. Patients enrolled into the studies must have primary hypertension at baseline (defined as SBP/DBP > 140/90 mmHg). Duration of studies must be between three to 12 weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors (GW and HB) confirmed the inclusion of studies and extracted the data independently. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trials that examined the blood pressure lowering efficacy of six partial agonists in 605 hypertensive patients were included in this review. Five of the included studies were parallel studies and the other eight were cross-over studies. The overall risk of bias is high in this review due to the small sample size and high risk of detection bias. Pindolol, celiprolol and alprenolol lowered SBP and DBP compared to placebo. Acebutolol lowered SBP but there was no clear evidence that it lowered DBP. There was no clear evidence that pindolol and oxprenolol lowered SBP or DBP. Other than for celiprolol, sample sizes were generally small increasing the uncertainty in findings for individual agents versus placebo. In patients with moderate to severe hypertension, partial agonists (considered as a subclass) lowered peak BP by an average of 8 mmHg systolic (95% CI, -10 to -6, very low quality evidence), 4 mmHg diastolic (95%CI, -5 to -3, very low quality evidence) and reduced heart rate by five beats per minute (95%CI, -6 to -4, very low quality evidence). Higher dose partial agonists did not appear to provide additional BP lowering effects compared to lower dose. The maximum BP lowering effect of the overall subclass occurred at the starting dose. Partial agonists reduced pulse pressure by 4 mmHg (95% CI, -5 to -2, very low evidence). Only one study reported withdrawal due to adverse effects, the risk ratio (95% confidence interval) was 0.72 (0.07, 7.67). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was very low quality evidence that in patients with moderate to severe hypertension, partial agonists lowered peak BP by an average of 8/4 mmHg and reduced heart rate by five beats per minute. There was no evidence of a greater effect at doses higher than the initial doses. This estimate was probably exaggerated as it was subject to a high risk of bias. Based on the indirect comparison of the results in this review and two Cochrane reviews on angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), which also used similar inclusion criteria as this review, the BP lowering effect appeared to be less than the effect in patients with mild to moderate elevated BP who were taking ACE inhibitors and ARBs based on an indirect comparison. Withdrawals due to adverse effects were only reported in one trial so it is impossible to assess the harm of these drugs.

Blood pressure lowering efficacy of nonselective beta-blockers for primary hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Beta-blockers are one of the classes of drugs frequently used to treat hypertension. Quantifying the blood pressure (BP) lowering effects of nonselective beta-blockers provides important information that aids clinical decision making. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the dose-related effects of nonselective beta-adrenergic receptor blockers (beta-blockers) on systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) as compared with placebo in people with primary hypertension. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials up to October 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel or cross-over trials. Studies had to contain a nonselective beta-blocker monotherapy arm with a fixed dose. Participants enrolled into the studies had to have primary hypertension at baseline. Duration of studies had to be between three and 12 weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (GW and AL) independently confirmed the inclusion of studies and extracted the data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 RCTs that evaluated the BP lowering effects of seven nonselective beta-blockers in 1264 people with hypertension. Among the 25 RCTs, four were parallel studies and 21 were cross-over studies. Overall, nonselective beta-blockers lowered systolic BP and diastolic BP compared with placebo. Nonselective beta-blockers, in the recommended dose range, did not showed a convincing dose-response relationship by direct comparison. The once (1x) and twice (2x) starting dose subgroups contained the largest sample size. The estimate of BP lowering efficacy for nonselective beta-blockers by combining the 1x and 2x starting dose subgroup was -10 mmHg (95% CI -11 to -8) for systolic BP and -7 mmHg (95% CI -8 to -6) for diastolic BP (low-quality evidence). Nonselective beta-blockers starting at the 1x recommended starting doses lowered heart rate by 12 beats per minute (95% CI 10 to 13) (low-quality evidence). The dose-response relationship in heart rate was evident by both direct and indirect comparison. Due to imprecision, there was no clear evidence of an effect of nonselective beta-blockers on pulse pressure in any dose subgroups except for a small reduction with the 2x starting dose (-2.2 mmHg, 95% CI -3.7 to -0.7) (very low quality evidence). The point estimates in the 1x, four times (4x) and eight times (8x) starting dose subgroups were similar to the 2x starting dose subgroup. Therefore, it would appear that if nonselective beta-blockers do lower pulse pressure, the magnitude is likely to be about 2 mmHg. There were very limited data (two studies) on withdrawals due to adverse effects (risk ratio (RR) 0.84; 95% CI 0.38 to 1.82). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people with mild-to-moderate hypertension, nonselective beta-blockers lowered peak BP by a mean of -10/-7 mmHg (systolic/diastolic) and reduced heart rate by 12 beats per minute. Propranolol and penbutolol were the two drugs that contributed to most of the data for nonselective beta-blockers. This estimate is likely exaggerated due to the presence of extreme outliers and other sources of bias. If we removed the extreme outliers from the analysis, the estimate for non-selective beta-blockers was lower (-8/-5 mmHg (systolic/diastolic)). Nonselective beta-blockers did not show a convincing graded dose-response in the recommended dose range for systolic BP and diastolic BP, while higher dose nonselective beta-blockers provided greater reduction of heart rate. Using higher dose nonselective beta-blockers might cause more side effects, such as bradycardia, without producing an additional BP lowering effect. The effect of nonselective beta-blockers on pulse pressure was likely small, at about 2 mmHg.